Ann: Half Yearly Report and Accounts, page-176

It all comes down to terminology with this acquisitions. Acquisitions are generally done for 1 reason, which is to drive EPS growth, which can be achieved in 1 of 2 ways (or both). A good deal on acquisition so without any changes to either business, its automatically EPS accretive or the savings are generated through synergies (ie. reduction to management costs etc). I don't believe this 1 stacks up to either. There aren't actually any specific financial synergies (ie. no duplicate costs that can be saved), and despite what was said in the original announcement, it isn't EPS accretive as I've shown. The rest is largely smoke and mirrors. JW constantly talks about C1 cash savings, which is fine (and what he is saying on this is largely true), but he fails to admit what the other costs are.

If you take a look at my post above (and I should have been clear with a bit, I've had to include all costs into COS, though some of these may be split out, but we haven't been given enough information to split them out).

If you take the blue from my spreadsheet above, this shows the audited financial statements of both companies (Fenix Newhaul is in 1 of the notes of FEX's annual report). Depreciation wasn't split out in the annual report, so I have used the depreciation as stated in the Interim report (this year) and doubled it, it shouldn't be far away from reality.

This shows C1 cash cost saving of $14.75 (this is taken at 100% because thats what the accounting adjustment will be). Offsetting this, is increased depreciation (as we are acquiring trucks, trailers and PPE) or $3.64 / tonne, increased finance costs (for the loans we took on) of $0.79 and reversal of the gain that FEX booked in 2022 (as we are now showing it in the C1 cash cost line) which is $3.57.

That leads to a EBT of an extra $6.75 / tonne (14.75-3.64-0.79-3.57).
Then add in the tax accrual recognised by Fenix Newhaul of $3.17 per tonne, and the net benefit to FEX is $3.57 per tonne, far below the C1 cash cost benefit, and why I always look for EPS amounts when reviewing acquisitions as frankly as investors thats really the only number that ultimately matters.

I can't see how the company could say it was EPS / DPS accretive (like they did back in June when the acquisition was announced) when it actually reduces the EPS and would therefore make it harder to maintain the DPS as overall cash required would have increased.